Talk:Warp factor/archive
For previous discussions, see Talk:Warp factor/archive. Warp 3 In it is stated that the Fajo's ship can travel at warp 3, and in 23 hours can make at most 0.102 light years. The correspondent velocity is 38.9×''c'', assuming that the ship was free to move along a straight path. This number is in contradiction with the speed derived from , as reported in the article's Table (I can't see the episode now). Possibly, the Jovis was moving in a region of space affected by tetryon fields (similar to the Hekaras system) or some other subspace intricacies which forced her to follow a non-linear trajectory. Should we mention this here? (the number, not my speculation) Triggerator 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC) :Enterprise is believed to use the TOS "Cochrane" scale, IIRC, while TNG and beyond used a "new" warp scale. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC) OK, thanks for clarifying this! Triggerator 08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Warp Scale This graph should be changed because it's obvious that ENT and TOS had a different warp scale. --From ''TrekkyStar''[[User Talk:TrekkyStar| Open Hailing Frequencies]] 13:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :This is a table, not a graph - and it, like the whole article, has been combined because there's really nothing "in canon" suggesting different warp scales in the series. Warp factors vs. speeds are all over the place in all shows, because no one really paid attention to it. -- Cid Highwind 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ::The portion of the table concerning "That Which Survives" should be edited. The Ent did not travel at warp 8.2 the entire time. For part of that time, they went up to 14.1 because of the overload.--NME 09:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC) :::And that's why it didn't take that long for them to get back. The travel time we use was given by the navigator when they assumed they would stay at 8.4 for the entire way back. As such it is correct. --Pseudohuman 06:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC) :Also according to Warp 8.4 part, a ship would travel at ~2,095.8 light years per day. I got this number by converting the '11.337' into hours, minuits, and seconds; which would be 11 hours, 20 minuits, and 13 seconds. I converted this into seconds and got 40,813. I then devided 990 by 40,813 and got 0.024256976943620905103765956925489. I then multiplied that number by 60, then 60 again, and then 24. ::::It's potentially a logarithmic scale, which would explain warp factor. Warp 1 is the warp factor times 10 to the power 1, warp 2 is the warp factor times 10 to the power 2 (so 10Xwf1), warp 3 is the warp factor times 10 to the power 3 (so 100Xwf1), etc. This may refer to power requirements, not speed, or may be measured in Cochranes.--Indefatigable 13:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) This is a related suggestion, we should add the speed in km/h, it would make more sense I think. warp factor one - 1 billion km/h warp factor two - 11 billion 3 - 42 billion 4 - 109 billion 5 - 229 billion 6 - 421 billion 7 - 703 billion 8 - 1.1 trillion 9 - 1.62 trillion 9.2 - 1.77 trillion 9.6 - 2.05 trillion 9.9 - 3.27 trillion 9.99 - 8.48 trillion 9.9999 - 214 trillion 10 - infinite (pulled from the table in the star trek encyclopedia) – Alexbeard 20:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Missing variable references In , and without getting into too many details, it was noted that a vessel traveling at warp 8.7 could travel X distance in 14 hours, while a second vessel traveling at warp 9 could travel that same X distance in only 5 hours. X was obviously the unknown factor in the reference, and at the moment, I am not seeing if we can make any correlation between the two factors other than to state the scenario. In , it was stated that a Corvallen freighter had limited speed (X variable), and could travel approximately 15 light years in "not more than a day". These might not be worth anything, but I thought it would be worth noting them somewhere. --Alan 04:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC) : gives a journey of about 700 years for a shuttle going warp 4 to get "home". The exact distance is missing of course in that episode. It's almost the end of year two for the Voyager and stardates around 4969X.X are given in the ep. A star chart http://www.stdimension.org/Cartography/Source/map_voyroute.jpg in the background monitors of season seven fills the missing distances for the year two period to be from approx. 72 to 68 thousand ly's. It's a bit of a reach so I don't know if it qualifies. You be the judge. --Pseudohuman 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC) ::The Gambit reference is a good one - it means that, all other things being equal, warp 9 is 2.8 (=14/5) times as fast as warp 8.7. As a comparison between two speeds, we can't put it in the table, but it would make a good note somewhere else in the article. ::The FotE reference, not so sure - perhaps a note on the Corvallen freighter article rather than here? ::The Resolutions reference is missing a good comparison value - otherwise we could use it like the first reference. -- Cid Highwind 20:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC) More: In the following was stated: 'To travel the distance we did in two days at warp 1 would have taken the Odin escape pod five months, six days, 11 hours, two minutes and 57 seconds.' Also: In the following was stated but the factor was not: "...but at a relative speed of 2 billion kilometers per second, it's pretty tough to get a transporter lock on somebody." Again, these might not be worth anything, but I thought it would be worth noting them somewhere. --Alan 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC) :In the new film the Enterprise travels at about 2,8 million times the speed of light to Vulcan. Has anyone spotted a canonical warp factor for this speed in any of the readouts etc. bg sources say "maximum warp" is synonymous to "wf 8"... --Pseudohuman 09:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC) "Warp .5 may have been originally intended to be slightly faster" Why bother? The ULTIMATE intent made it into . Speculation about some hypothetical "original" intent is totally useless. Full-canon warp is complicated enough already. This isn't some NOTABLE "original intent" or "early concept" like Troi's third boob. I move to delete this Warp .5 note. SennySix 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC) :Well, it can be worded differently, but as this page is about any and all measurable statements regarding how fast warp factors actually are, I think it worth noting in some small way here as there are not a lot of measurable distance-time notes available anyways. I agree it doesn't really qualify as some "huge original intent" but as it is written in the script, it is a piece relevant background information. --Pseudohuman 05:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Not when that very script was re-written to a new onscreen statement. This isn't some script where the scene was never produced, the scene WAS SEEN, with different information. And even if it were some cut-out scene or "lost script", it wouldn't help. Canon all by itself is too inconsistent to throw offscreen crud in there. SennySix 06:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC) :I understand your point, however this is one of the few complete references available, and its not "thrown into canon" its just a bgnote that comes from the "shooting script" of the film. There is no policy or precedence I know of that states, when a scene is filmed differently than it was scripted, the scripted material should not be noted in the background section. In fact, our policy is that any scipt can be referenced in articles when formatted as background information. Which is the case here. --Pseudohuman 07:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Warp factors are not absolute (can you cite this?) This has been in the article for years. It wasn't cited for a long time. More and more weaselly words got stuck to it over the years. It got moved from the intro (!!!) to Background. A citation got added, but it's not actually relevant. I think it's got to go. Today's version says: :fans speculate that warp factors are, in terms of their light speed equivalents, not absolute, but only relative figures, depending on the local properties of space and subspace, the multiples given are only minimum/average values. The actual speed is dependent upon interstellar conditions like gas density, electric and magnetic fields and fluctuations in the subspace domain as well as energy penalties resulting from quantum drag forces and power oscillation inefficiencies. This theory would seem to be substantiated by references in several episodes, including VOY: "Bride of Chaotica!". What a lot of apologism and speculation. Anybody who can cite any of that, please contribute something that will allow us to get rid of the "fans speculate" embarrassment. Otherwise I don't see how any of it can stay in any form. SennySix 06:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC) :I agree, and removed it.– Cleanse 07:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Earth-Neptune distance This was recently changed from the approximate "~60 AU" to an exact value of "58.2 AU". The distance between these two planets is not fixed but varies, because a) both planets move and b) both orbits aren't exactly circular. This means we shouldn't postulate any exact value for the distance, but instead work with an average/approximate value. This average value is, surprisingly exact, 30 AU (or 60 for twice the way). The same, by the way, is true for the Earth-Jupiter distance, which might be anywhere between 3.95 and 6.45 AU. Not exactly a minor difference, the second value is more than 150% of the first, leading to huge speed differences as well. I'm going to modify that as well. -- Cid Highwind 20:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC) :I based the values on the average AU distance from the Sun, given in wikipedia pages of Jupiter and Neptune, minus 1 (Earth) of course. It is stated on the list that these are approximate values, so I thought to use the approximate AU values. I dont know where the 30 AU comes from. I would rather we use the accurate approximate values than wrong approximate values or "at most to at least" values. --Pseudohuman 21:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Problem is, if Earth is on the opposite side of the sun, at that moment, you mustn't subtract 1 AU, but add 1 AU. From exactly that Wikipedia page, Neptune is between 29.77 and 30.44 AU away from the sun. At the same time, Earth's distance to the sun is between 0.98 and 1.02 AU - leading to a distance between the two planets somewhere in the range from 29.77-1.02='28.75' to 30.44+1.02='31.46' AU. 30.0 is pretty much the average between those two values, with the margin of error of the whole remaining calculation being much greater than the 0.105 that were rounded off here. In the Earth-Jupiter case, if we don't use a range there, we shouldn't attempt any calculation at all. The margin of error is just too big otherwise. -- Cid Highwind 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC) :I don't think we should note a 6,45 AU (in essense Enterprise passing the sun to get to Jupiter on the other side of the solar system) value for Jupiter, as the premis of the scene where Enterprise is passing Jupiter is that the Enterprise was simply hurrying out of the solar system to engage warp drive safely. It would make no sense for the Enterprise to take a long scenic route just to see Jupiter in that context. That would make no sense. --Pseudohuman 21:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC) ::I agree with Pseudohuman. Unless they went to Jupiter to do a flyby or use it as a slingshot then they just took the most direct route to wherever they were going. Of course...if we're nitpicking here, maybe their destination was on the other side of the solar system and Jupiter just happen to be on route... I think a range is perfectly valid if we really need to include that information here. Morder 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC) :Yeah, I don't think starships with impulse power use slingshots to gain velocity anymore. At high warp they would have passed the solar system in the blink of an eye. Only rational reason for them to pass Jupiter is that by chance the planets were aligned at that time, so a 3.93'AU - '''4.48'AU differential should be used if we don't go with an average. Added to that, the sun is behind the ship as it leaves Earth orbit at warp .5 to exit the solar system. Nothing points to the Enterprise adding over half an hour to it's trip in that scene. :Also we need to use a range with the Neptune statement too, I think, as with the differetial of the possible distances of 57.5AU to 62.92AU Warp 4.5 could be anything from '79.7'c to '87.2'c. Thats a big difference IMO. --Pseudohuman 07:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Which is why most of those numbers were rounded estimates, before you started to calculate exact values where such really isn't possible. What if the time span in "Neptune and back in 6 minutes" is just a rounded figure as well? It would be a rather lucky coincidence if the trip took '''exactly 6 minutes in exactly that current configuration of the solar system. It's more likely that the actual time needed would be somewhere in the 5:40-6:20 range. Or, given the fact that these guys were working on their shiny new warp ship for years, "Neptune and back" could just be their typical test route for new warp drive configurations, and "6 minutes at Warp 4.5" turned out to be their average speed throughout all that time. In any case, there seem to be only three ways out here: a) give the full range possible, b) give an average value, rounded so that the margin of error isn't too big, or c) remove that line completely, if (b) isn't possible. -- Cid Highwind 08:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC) :I'm sorry for my calculations before. I was wrong. I say now, (a) give the full range on Neptune, and give the full range assuming a Jupiter-Earth-Sun alignment. As that is the only rational interpretation of the scene. As for the six minutes, the guys in that scene knew the exact time they were going to test the new engine and logically the position of Neptune, so I would think the 6 minutes is an accurate figure for that test as it was propably planned and simulated and so forth. One other possibility is to give the average values and a plusminus figure on how much diversion is possible with the values as given onscreen in these two cases. I'm against © removing any of the few accurate estimations trek allows. --Pseudohuman 10:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Hmm, I just checked TMP, and now I'm even less sure about all of that. First, when departing Earth, the viewer doesn't show Sol in front of the ship. However, when Kirk demands "departure angle", we see Earth, half lit, suggesting an approximate right angle between their course and the Earth-Sol line. However, what directly follows is this: *Cut: Viewer to Kirk *Cut: ...to Ilia, smiling at Decker *Cut: ...to Decker, smiling back *Cut: ...to Viewer, now showing the Jupiter flyby *Cut: ...back to Kirk, making a log entry. In this log entry, Kirk tells us that they are now "1.8 hours from launch". Yet, there hasn't been any visible "time jump" (in terms of film editing) since their departure from Earth. If there is an "invisible" one (which we have to assume exists between showing Earth and showing Jupiter), then why can't there be a second one, between the flyby and the log entry. We can't really be sure that it is 1.8 hours to Jupiter instead of 1.8 hours to some random point beyond. I now think the Earth-Jupiter reference needs to go completely. -- Cid Highwind 11:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC) :I suppose they didn't want to put an eclipse image of Earth in the scene :) I've assumed the time jump is after Decker smiles. But I can see your point, with that logic let's remove the "that which survives" and "by any other name" references too. We don't know how long they had traveled before maintaining the 8.4 speed, and the latter doesn't have a definite warp factor statement. Also the Neptune statement should be removed as there might have easily been some ellaborate indirect route there too. --Pseudohuman 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC) You're right about the TWS reference - although, it couldn't be much more than the 11 hours suggested right now. If I remember correctly, the away team was stranded on the planet the whole time, without any mention of missing supplies. Even assuming a whole day or two would still make the resulting speed way out of line. However, true, it's not an exact figure. Maybe we can create a second, similar, table in the background section, where we collect these "unsure" datapoints? I don't see the problem with the BAON reference, though... -- Cid Highwind 12:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC) :BAON is missing the variable of what the exact warp factor is for extended intergalactic travel, as such its not even worth mentioning in the table. :IMO a division into two tables would be an excellent idea. one for the absolutely fully exact values, and one in the appendices for values that are a bit unsure, or that have a minimum and maximum possibility, it could also include some of the missing variable things where we can use a speed assesment from other episodes etc. to fill the gap. the ditl-page shows an impressive list and we have uncovered a lot more of these missing (or sort of missing) variable statements where you can still determine a maximum minimum value for a warp factor by throwing in some sort of a logical assumption. I would like to see two tables. It might turn out a bit messy, but if we base everything in onscreen statements it would be a worth while reference table to list up everything canonically stated and implied about the speed capabilities of warpships. :One could say it's nitpicking, but I think that is just because most people have fallen in love with the whole "tos/tng scales give the real speed" (and everything that doesnt fit should be ignored), even though no such scales have ever been stated onscreen and most of the reference material on the scales state that the scales dont take into account any spatial or subspatial variables. So it would not really be a list of inconsistancies but rather a reference table on just how big speed variations can canonically exist within a given warp factor. --Pseudohuman 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC) "Extremely rare form of dilithium"? :Tom Paris of the USS Voyager reached the warp 10 threshold in 2372, using shuttlecraft Cochrane which was equipped with an '''extraordinarily rare form of dilithium discovered earlier that year.' What is the source of this information? I don't recall any sort of "special" dilithium being mentioned in that episode. Ambassador/Ensign_Q 19:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC) :Well the exact quote is Paris: "''We discovered a new form of dilithium in the asteroid field we surveyed last month. It remains stable at a much higher warp frequency." I think its safe to assume it is "rare" as this was the first time it was discovered anywhere after hundreds of years of space exploration... --Pseudohuman 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Warp 9+ demo formula :For warp>9, there are many possible variations of a mathematical continuous domain formula that could be approximated. Below is such example of a formula that has the "10/3" exponent growing exponentially with a "w/(10-w)" function, which evidently reach infinity at warp 10. The growth of the exponent is slowed considerably by a Nth root until the warp factor 'wf' approaches 10. ::speed/c = wf^( (10/3)^( (wf/(10-wf))^(1/N) ) ) :: speed = wf^{({(\frac{10}{3})}^{({(\frac{wf} )}^{(\frac{1}{N})})})} c :For Voyager to do approximately 4 billion miles/s (in ) at warp 9.9, we would set N=23. If we were to set N=30.35, the 4 billion miles/s would be at warp 9.975. ---- This initially was content removed from the article for being speculation. The content has been revised here during a later edit (see this diff). Even the revised formula is nothing but speculation, I think. Sure, it might be a formula that approximates the TNGTM Warp 9+ graph - but then, so do millions of other formulas, as even the revised text states. It's nothing but guesswork, and even then, guesswork based on behind-the-scenes material that has been explicitly contradicted by most of the cases where both speed and warpfactor were given. I don't think this needs to be in the article. -- Cid Highwind 15:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC) : Although I acknowledge the plurality of mathematical models, there isn't millions of variations that are both simple to express and whose regression is relatively easily understandable. For the sake of maintaining a good spirit of entertainment and technical advancement, I invite the readers to express their views and submit alternative mathematical models of the warp transfer function. This could provide substantial material to an article on Warp scale modeling. :: I don't. If there is no canon formula, then simply put, readers shouldn't be wasting talk page space speculating about something that is not known, and will likely never be known, given the contradicting facts that do exist. --Alan 22:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC) ::* RE: : "Clearly this community has members who have no intentions of letting any space to creativity nor freedom of speech." :: I am sorry you feel the need to cause a scene, but this has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" or "creativity", it's about what MA is and is not: Memory Alpha ''is an encyclopedia and as such, there are certain things that Memory Alpha is not, as... a discussion forum. We're not here to chat or to discuss ideas – we're simply here to write the encyclopedia.'' Which I also explained above. --Alan 23:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Warp 10 redux I was just "testing the waters" with this. Similar to the Wikipedia pages on orders of magnitude (like ), I think nicely written pages on individual warp factors (within the arbitrary whole number system) could make for get articles (only 14 pages in canon I believe). Unlike other orders of magnitude, Warp factors are tied heavily into Trek, and we know very much about their development (the breaking of the Warp 1/2/3/5/"10" barriers by Humans and the like). Only "notable" uses should be counted, not a minor cruising speed used to get somewhere in a specific episode or assumed speeds (like the never mentioned Warp 12 or Warps 15-29 that had to have been surpassed at times).--Tim Thomason 01:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC) :I'm not sure we'd really need all these articles. Before this article was recreated, I merged the old content to Warp factor (section Warp 10...), which this article pretty much duplicates at the moment. We know that Warp 5 was considered a big achievement at the time, but even there, we don't really know why and what the achievement really was. We know even less about other warp factors, I think. Because of the (production-wise) very arbitrary nature of Warp factors, I think it is much more useful to have a central table listing the few known Warp factor/speed relations than to have 14 separate articles. -- Cid Highwind 10:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Warp 10: Suggest Merge Either this page should be merged with Warp factor#Warp 10..., or we should create separate pages for all different warp factors ever mentioned. --Pseudohuman 23:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC) :Support merge – Morder 23:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC) On the other hand it would be intresting to have specific warp factor pages where relative facts that don't translate to multiples of c are stated about them, such as how much faster warp 3 is relative to 1.8, and collecting a listing of what ships have that specific warp factor as their maximum warp etc. as Tim Thomason suggested above, when the speed was first achieved by which species. Things that we don't cover in the Warp factor-article because it would too much clutter up the page. Not to get insane about it a single article would cover references from warp 1 to 1.999... and so on. If you want to compare facts like this regarding ships now, you needs to read through a lot of articles. It would give you a good place to quickly check out the "which ship is faster" type of questions =) --Pseudohuman 03:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC) :I support a merge with the page mentioned and donÄt think we should have a page for every warp factor. When searching fo a term like this I would search on the warp factor page.